jetpack_monkey_ljarchive

I would like to keep this cinema blog somewhat accessible, without compromising the fact that I like my movies like I like my women -- esoteric. As such, I will probably alternate, something well-known and something not very well known at all. Something older, something newer.

In keeping with this, I'm starting out with a double feature: Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann, 2001) and Bone (Larry Cohen, 1972).

Source: IFC showing (widescreen, DVR)	Moulin Rouge! Moulin Rouge! was actually the second half of my double feature tonight. I chose it primarily because my roommate had never seen it. Shock and dismay. My first experience with Moulin Rouge! came from my college roommate, CD. I thank him for this, if nothing else. At the time, I walked away dazzled and bewildered and completely in love. It was #1 on my Top 10 films of 2001. For one reason or another, I never bought the film on DVD, however. Given the choice now, over five years later, I'm not sure I would buy it. Certainly, it is a charming film, largely due to the effortless chemistry between Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, McGregor and a typewriter, and McGregor and oxygen. His broad smile and expressive eyes betray every single emotion, spilling them onto the screen. It doesn't hurt that he's a looker. Luhrmann's hyperkinetic editing, once a source of joy and possibility for me, now seems really silly. Luhrmann's intent appears to have been molding a world of pop opulence out of turn-of-the-century Montmartre, utilizing modern MTV music video techniques and rock songs, in order to give a modern window into the feel of the Bohemian revolution. The goal is lofty, but I feel the execution leaves something to be desired. Cinema is supposed to be 24 frames per second, not 24 edits. Additionally, the film's heavy-handed approach to Satine's fate just bogs the film. I almost wonder if Luhrmann's MTV approach lead him to treat the audience like the lowest common denominator amongst MTV viewers (you know, the ones who watch TRL and keep demanding the same music videos over and over again). There are at least five terribly explicit reminders that Things Are Bad. Most of these reminders, incidentally, use the same overhead camera angle, which is repeated in Satine's last scene. Luhrmann would have found more success limiting the repetition and giving it more power in a few key uses, rather than let it degrade into an MST3K callback ("Oh, she's coughing! Overhead shot in 3, 2, 1... WOO!"). Still, despite these flaws, Moulin Rouge! has a certain voodoo that it does so well. The reworkings of popular music into showtunes make my musical geek heart skip beats. Luhrmann's eye for opulence rarely wavers -- he knows how to drape a film in beautiful decadence. Furthermore, there are sequences where his editing hits the target so hard that it aches -- The Tango de Roxanne, for instance. It's certainly a film I would not mind seeing once a year, which is probably more often than I see most of the films I actually do own.

Source: Blue Underground DVD	Bone I'm covering the films I watched tonight in reverse order, since I'm having more trouble expressing what I feel about Larry Cohen's directorial debut Bone. Three people, trapped and stifled in their societal roles, come together in emotionally devastating confrontation that exposes secrets, unlocks hidden shames, and forces them to revolt against or run from their current lifestyles. Here's an icky twist. The title character's stifling societal role is as a thug and a rapist. Given my extreme discomfort with rape sequences, I had the incredible misfortune to pick two films that feature attempted rape (although neither film consummated the act, thankfully). The back of the box paints a picture of an Americanized Luis Buñuel film, where the lives of bourgeois are turned up their head in an absurdist row. The IMDb page doesn't really dissuade this notion, listing the film's only genre as "comedy." I suppose it is a comedy, as it's certainly not a drama; the juxtapositions between moments of violence and domesticity are too jarring and often funny despite themselves. Additionally, one of the more disturbing sequences from the beginning of the film becomes set-up for a morbid, twisted, and darkly humorous finale. If I had to paint Bone as a comedy, it would be as a very very dark comedy, but it's probably best that such labels are left to the side. Cohen's later work (see It's Alive, God Told Me To, and Q: The Winged Serpent) would start with a basic "template" genre and then extends outward, grabbing hold of bits and pieces of other genres as it could. Bone does the opposite -- it has no real genre to speak of. There's no good way to pigeonhole the film, which is probably why it was a financial flop upon its initial release in 1972. Unfortunately, it's too late to continue. I might have more thoughts tomorrow. I might not. We'll see.

For those keeping track, I will definitely be watching and commenting on the following films soon: The Candy Snatchers and Blood Freak (both on 3/30), and Grindhouse (on or around 4/6).